3. The complainant has tendered into evidence annexure C-1 to annexure C-4 and closed the evidence.
On the other hand, the respondent No.1 tendered into evidence annexure A to annexure E and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel of the parties and have gone through the entire evidence so placed on record by both the parties very carefully and minutely.
During the course of arguments, the learned counsel of complainant reiterated the contents of complaint filed by the complainant and the learned counsel of respondent No.1 reiterated the contents of written statement filed by the respondent No.1 and drawn the attention of this Forum towards the documents so placed by them on behalf of the parties.
5. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel of the parties, going through the facts of the case file and perusing the documents so placed on record by the parties very carefully and minutely, we have observed that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone (OnePlus 7 Pro) worth Rs. 42,999/-vide order dated 20.1.2020 from respondent No. 2 using Annexure C-2 & Annexure C-3. The bare perusal of these emails show that the complainant sent the email on 6.6.2020 informing to the respondent No. 3 that the mobile phone purchased by him in the last week of January 2020 was being charged by him using the charger came with phone and when he got a phone call, he removed the charging able to answer the call, it felt so hot and due to this impact, the phone dropped from his hand and the screen was cracked and thereafter requested to the respondent No. 3 to replace the phone or the screen. We have further perused email dated 12.6.2020 annexure C-3 whereby the respondent No. 3 asked from the complainant to walk into the service centre located in HUDA Market, Sector-17, Faridabad despite the fact there is service centre in Bhiwani District and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were supposed to provide their services at Bhiwani. Hence, we are of the considered view that by doing so, the respondent No. 3 manufacturing company of mobile phone has harassed the complainant and thereby committed deficiency in service towards the complainant. Moreover, we have observed that when notice was issued to the respondents, none has appeared on behalf of company and ultimately, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.7.2020 and hence, it is presumed that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were negligent and deficient towards providing their faithful services to the complainant.
6. In view of aforesaid discussion and findings, it is observed that the respondent No. 3 mobile manufacturing company shall refund the cost of mobile handset i.e. Rs. 42,999/-to the complainant. The complainant is also directed to return the disputed mobile phone with all its accessories to the manufacturing company/respondent No.3 at the time of payment. The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs. 3000/-on account of mental agony, harassment and Rs. 3000/-on account of litigation expenses to be paid by the respondent No. 3. The above order be complied within 30 days after receiving the copy of this order, failing which the ordered amount i.e. the cost of mobile i.e. Rs. 42,999/- will carry an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization. Certified copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs.
File be consigned after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission
Dated: - 29.1.2021
(Shriniwas Khundia) (Nagender Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.
